No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs Perfecto comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Professional Perfo...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
82
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (2nd)
Perfecto
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
13th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Functional Testing Tools (20th), Mobile App Testing Tools (6th), Test Automation Tools (21st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) is 15.6%, up from 13.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Perfecto is 3.6%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional)15.6%
Perfecto3.6%
Other80.8%
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

SR
Assistant Director at Synapxe
Has enabled my team to identify bottlenecks effectively and deliver reliable performance analysis across projects
I have mentioned many advantages about this product, but to discuss disadvantages or areas that could be improved, I would need to consult with my engineers who are working on it. So far I have not heard of any significant issues. I can gather specific improvement suggestions from my architect and provide that information later.
Rodrigo Candido Costa - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Quality and Automation Specialist at PRIME CONTROL
The solution saves us money because the cost of each license is 10 times lower than what we would spend to maintain infrastructure here
Sometimes, when the automated tests sync up or we have to debug remotely, we cannot interact directly with the device. We can interact with the code in the debugging tool, but we cannot directly click on the element on the screen or send other kinds of inputs to the device. This is possible with other tools. Also, it would be nice if there were some kind of API to get a list of available devices. Currently, we have to look at the web interface to see the available devices, but the pipelines can't do it on their own there. We always need to do this manually, so it would be better if this feature was automated.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"LoadRunner is a very systematic tool for anyone to use. Even someone who is actually a first time user of LoadRunner can actually get a lot of benefit out of the tool."
"The solution helps my clients save time. It is easier to capture reports and improves product quality. The product helps to identify customer defects during performance tests and reduces workloads. The product has improved my client's user interaction. It has reduced peak load times."
"It is a good and stable tool."
"The most valuable features are the ease of using it to create scripts and the broad number of technologies supported, including apps, SAP, and everything on the web."
"I appreciate its ability to handle various internal calls and its user-friendly interface."
"For me as a user, the flexibility in different protocols and things like that which can be tested with the tool."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The quality of our software has improved since we implemented this solution."
"I also like the reporting functions. We are constantly downloading these reports and sharing them with our final customers. They help us understand what kind of bugs are happening through the applications. The recording feature is handy because it lets us see a video of the process we run through the pipeline and discover the point at which the automation is breaking."
"We are able to offer a quality product that has been tested fully, which improves our customer satisfaction. That is a good thing. It has also reduced our IT infrastructure cost. We don't have to spend a lot on setting up infrastructure, which becomes redundant or obsolete very soon. It helps in offsetting that cost."
"Perfecto has definitely saved us on the costs and efforts of having to maintain our own virtual test environment."
"In terms of cross-platform testing, they offer all of it, every device available in the market. It covers real scenarios that mimic production so that we don't miss out on any devices that our clients might be using to run the applications we develop. It's been great and very helpful."
"Perfecto is a game-changer for us, we save at least $10,000 monthly."
"Perfecto has affected our software quality in a good way. It has allowed us to execute on-demand and on-choice. We also track the number of issues that we find in the product. Every single day, we tag the issues that we found. For example, if something was found by automation, that means it was found by a Perfecto execution. Over time, we realized the real value in tracking those numbers. We can see now that we have clearly been finding issues earlier. It has allowed us to catch our defects earlier, thus improving the quality of our applications."
"The automated test reporting functionality is the most valuable feature. We use the CI Dashboard. It's very important as it is the main reporting tool for our automated tests."
 

Cons

"Technical support needs to be faster, and the pricing should be more competitive."
"The solution needs to reduce its pricing. Right now, it's quite expensive."
"Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional can improve the implementation of digital areas, such as digital testing, UI and native application, and native mobile applications."
"The solution is very costly. The cost is very high, especially considering a lot of other resources are available now and they are less expensive. For a small organization, it is very difficult to sustain the costs involved in having the solution or the related fees"
"The demo that I've seen today, it sounds pretty cool but it still has some limitations I guess."
"Technical support is challenging. We have premier support for ALM and Performance Center, and we usually get inexperienced engineers when we contact tech support."
"Improvement wise, the pipeline should be enabled. It should be embedded as part of the tool itself rather than going with third-party tools. Monitoring should be more effective as well."
"More guidance on the use of the Tru Client protocol which is used for Web interfaces."
"It would be ideal if there was a complete integration with other test management tools and other applications like HPLM, Micro Focus, or Microsoft Azure."
"In iOS, it needs improvements with some limitations."
"I'm hoping they can support on-premises instances."
"Going by the dashboard or analytics capabilities that Perfecto or Perforce is looking to offer in its roadmap, it will certainly help if they also cater to executing and enabling decision-making, rather than just focusing on standard testing metrics such as execution, efficiency, and defect rate. These are good metrics, but they don't necessarily enable decision-making for SLTs. Any improvements in the dashboards and reporting tools should focus on metrics or SLAs that can help with decision-making."
"We feel that Perfecto is a little slow. If they could improve on that slowness in accessing the app, when we want to click a button, that would be great because we feel the difference. An improvement in the connectivity speed is required."
"On the analytics side, Perfecto is in need of improvement."
"The monitoring features, in particular network traffic monitoring, could be improved."
"Its performance should be improved. Anything to speed up the user interface would be a great help. We've had a lot of pain with their migration from a product UI that was based on Adobe Flash to the new product that is based on HTML5. Migrations like that seemed to be very painful and not a real smooth process. We're still sort of recovering from that migration from old technology to new, and we haven't got all the functionality ported over that we used to have on the old UI."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution's pricing is expensive."
"I don't know the licensing cost, but I think that you would get a discount for normal usage. I think there are different yearly options for different types of usage. It is not only how many users, but also whether it is shareable or not and other criteria involved in each feature. There are additional fees for the users and hardware linked to the processing."
"The price is a bit on the high side, but it is still affordable."
"The pricing model, especially when involving partners, could use some improvement."
"LoadRunner is more expensive than some competing products."
"When you compare the cost of other tools such as NeoLoad and LoadNinja, the cost of LoadRunner is on the expensive side. As a result, we are currently considering going with NeoLoad."
"It is competing with other products that may cost significantly less or may be available as open-source. Because of that it is relatively expensive."
"There is a licensing cost that is expensive."
"This is an expensive solution compared to others, by 30% to 40%."
"Pricing-wise, it is fine. It is not as expensive as what we used to have in the past from HP, IBM, and others. It is decently priced."
"I am not sure about its pricing, but from our perspective, licensing has been easy. Anytime I have new users or requests for users that want to get added, it's a very simple process. I just give the architectural owner of the product the name and email address, and they're able to easily add a new user. We don't have any issues in regards to getting licenses, but I don't have any insights into pricing."
"Perfecto is about 30-40% cheaper than Device Anywhere. That was a big reason why we switched. Perfecto also solves some of the issues that we had with Device Anywhere. We have grown by 100% since we started to use Perfecto, and now we have devices roaming. When we look at the competition, we would still stick with Perfecto."
"Perfecto has definitely saved us on the costs and efforts of having to maintain our own virtual test environment. We lost about 20 devices in the past to maintenance and audit. That was a massive loss for us, as a company, because we were giving devices to someone, but don't know whether we would get it back or not. Having those virtual labs, we don't need to worry about these kinds of things. We are easily saving $5,000 to $10,000 a month on device costing."
"Perfecto's price is excellent compared to other products with similar features. It was the lowest of the three we evaluated. We also established a partnership with Perfecto, so they provide discounts when we sell Perfecto projects and licenses to our customers."
"It's definitely on the higher end of prices for this type of service."
"Although Perfecto is a good product for us to use, it is a bit expensive. It takes management a bit of work to find the appropriate funding for us to keep Perfecto. I imagine there could be some way to make it more accessible."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Penetration and Neoload Tester at a university with 501-1,000 employees
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
12%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise67
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business1
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise23
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I have mentioned many advantages about this product, but to discuss disadvantages or areas that could be improved, I would need to consult with my engineers who are working on it. So far I have not...
What is your primary use case for Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
I work only with the performance testing tools and not with OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) for mobile and web applications. With performance testing, I am t...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
Perfecto Mobile, Perfecto Web
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
Virgin Media, Paychex, Rabobank, R+V, Discover
Find out what your peers are saying about OpenText Professional Performance Engineering (LoadRunner Professional) vs. Perfecto and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.